Patna High Court
Binod Kumar PandeyversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The petition is dismissed as infructuous because the accused has already been acquitted, and no further proceedings are required.
Summary
The petitioner, Binod Kumar Pandey, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash an order dated 13 August 2018 that had taken cognizance against him under Sections 498(A), 307 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The petition argued that he had already been acquitted by the trial court on 24 February 2024, rendering the earlier order moot. The State of Bihar raised no objection to the petitioner's request. The High Court, after considering the counsel’s submissions and the trial court’s report, held that the matter had become infructuous due to the acquittal. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition without entertaining the quash application. The order reflects that once an acquittal is recorded, any pending criminal proceeding against the same person on the same charges is deemed unnecessary.
Issues considered
- Whether a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is maintainable when the accused has already been acquitted in the trial court?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 307, 498A
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure
- Section 482 CrPC
- Quash Petition
- Infructuous proceeding
- Acquittal
- Section 498A IPC
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 120B IPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61682 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2018 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Rohtas
======================================================
Binod Kumar Pandey S/o Parshuram Pandey, R/o Siddarthpuram Colony,
Mahanandpur, Mughalsarai- 232101, P.S.- Mughalsarai-Kotwali Town, Uttar
Pradesh.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Sunita Pandey W/o Binod Kumar Pandey, R/o Gajrad, Gali Number 10,
Ward Number 4, Sasaram, P.S.- Thana -Model, Rohtas, Bihar- 821115.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chaubey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Parmeshwar Mehta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed under Section
482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 13.08.2018 passed by
the learned A.C.J.M., Sasaram in S. Tr. No. 411 of 2018, arising
out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2018 by which cognizance
was taken against the petitioner under Section 498(A), 307 and
120(B) of the I.P.C.
3. As per the report dated 01.09.2025, submitted by
the Court concerned, S.Tr. No. 411 of 2018, arising out of
Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2018 has been disposed of and the
petitioner has already been acquitted on 24.02.2024.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61682 of 2018(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has already been acquitted and this case has become
infructuous, accordingly, prays for disposal of this case.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has no objection to this
prayer of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions of learned counsels
for the parties and report of the learned Trial Court, this case is
disposed of having become infructuous.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
rakhi/-
U T
Checking your session…